Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 3 Dec 1995 13:32:31 -0700 (MST)
From:      Terry Lambert <>
Cc:, FreeBSD-Questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: xemacs
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <> from "Doug White" at Dec 2, 95 04:52:24 pm

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
> I personally like your way, and do so, because I can't figure out how to 
> make the syntax highlighting stick.  It does in html mode, but not in cpp 
> mode.

[ ... Coding style ... ]

I've found that coding style is generally a function of the tools you
use to manipulate the code.

For most UNIX-oids, it's 'vi', 'find', and 'grep', etc.

Use of tag-files reduces the utility of some of these tools, making
then redundant.  Use of things like "cvi" results in some "unnatural"
standards that become much easier to use with macro-editing.

You can almost pick out which system and what tools a programmer
uses by the coding style, unless they are real green and haven't
established a style or adopted a standard style for a platform,
with minor variations.

For instance, you typically see

<return type>

instead of

<return type> <funcname>

when a programmer uses the ^<funcname> regular expression to find a
function declaration, either in vi in a single file or using grep
over a large number of files.

You see

<function declaration>

Instead of

<function declaration>


<function declaration> {

when a programmer uses the vi "[[" and "]]" commands (without using
a "set paragraphs=" command in their .exrc) to find function starts.

You see

<statement expression> {

instead of

<statement expression>

When the programmer uses the vi "$%" to match statement scope, since
it is less finger motion than "j%", etc., etc..

Not much relevance, I know, but it's an interesting aside.

					Terry Lambert
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>